Originally posted by EarthEvolvesOK. Well, what compelling government interest was served in destroying a mural that the government
commissioned in the first place?

Not to sound too obtuse, but what compellng interest did the Government have in the first place to even commission the mural in the first
place?

Pure speculation, but would the mural have been approved and accepted if it had shown the struggles of the Individual? The individual who fought
against the odds, the unions and the governmental pressures to make their own economic liberty?

Painting the mural is one thing. Destroying/removing a mural is something else. One is an act of creation, the other an act of destruction. I tend
to think that there is a higher bar to the latter than to the former.

Are America's medium-sized businessmen babies that they cannot tolerate some criticism, somewhere? I always hear politicians (another group of
babies) calling them the engine of economic growth. Sorry, but they only deserve that status if they hire and pay good wages. If not, then they
should go out of business. It sounds like a lot of those complaining were bad businessmen who were rotten to their poorer customers and deserved to
go out of business.

Even if I am wrong, and I admit that I have never seen the mural, it sounds like your disagreement with it is ideological and not based on a
compelling state interest. I have to see murals and artworks I might not agree with. I am an adult, and do not believe that the machinery of the
state should serve my private interests and remove a mural just because I am offended. I held the same standard when some nineties lesbian wanna'be
might have been offended that the Jefferson Memorial or Mount Vernon was too male or straight so I am consistent on this one. Art is art, and
sometimes it has to offend. Political correctness in whatever form is bad. That is what a free society is, as long as one group is not taking the
full brunt of all criticism which I oppose, be they businessmen or anyone. Criticism ought to be free, but diffuse and encompassing all groups of
people fairly and euitably.

In any case, this conversation is not bringing out the best in me, so I am going to leave it. It is interesting that you *DO* seem to agree with the
idea that state speech has a potential danger in it, given that you dislike the idea of state speech being lent to a mural that you feel demonizes
capital. If we agree on that general idea, even if we disagree on its implications in this case, then we agree on an important point.

Originally posted by EarthEvolves
In any case, this conversation is not bringing out the best in me, so I am going to leave it.

Understandably so. We have hit a point where we are a rock and a hard place....so to speak. We both speak and debate with vigor on our positions and
I commend you for that.

It is interesting that you *DO* seem to agree with the idea that state speech has a potential danger in it, given that you dislike the idea of
state speech being lent to a mural that you feel demonizes capital.

Given that you are bowing out and leaving the last word to me, I am left with want. The above what you said has me a bit perplexed. I see danger in
a specific manner, but not in what you seem. I never stated I disliked the mural in the first place, nor Government's commissioning of it. Those
are conclusions you made on your own beliefs.

As a final word, I get to express I suppose my deepest though upon this whole situation. If we are to be a truly free society -- in which private and
public citizens are not separated by any class means, than it would serve that those that have risen to the level of public servant are afforded the
same as we; being private citizens.

To limit Government from being able to speak or even forcing it to portray all sides of the speech would lead to an egregious overload of monuments
and murals -- in the name of fair speech. I hope you understand the distinction here. The Statue of Liberty is a beacon of hope to some -- but what
of those who adhere to a more "controlled" point of view? Should the Government be forced to erect or solicit a statue dedicated towards
dictatorship? It would only be fair....

Actually, I am going away for a while. It is disappointing to me that "our" community is unable to stop things like...well, the guy being kept in a
cell for a number of days. Is there an Occupy movement to target the war on civil liberties?

I would only briefly state that while you may have a point on the proliferation of statues, this is a about removing an existing mural and not
erecting a new one. Other than that, I have no further response and wish you the best.

Actually, I am going away for a while. It is disappointing to me that "our" community is unable to stop things like...well, the guy being kept in a
cell for a number of days. Is there an Occupy movement to target the war on civil liberties?

I would only briefly state that while you may have a point on the proliferation of statues, this is a about removing an existing mural and not
erecting a new one. Other than that, I have no further response and wish you the best.

Finis

You spoke nonsense here....sorry you are "going away for awhile" but really --- I have a point on statutes? This has everything to do with the
erection and removal of mural. You have made the point that "Government" is allowed to speak when the narrative is in favor of your point of
view; but the minute it turns and "Government" speaks against such narrative, you create an uproar....

Normally I would ask you to prove me wrong, but your responses such have indicated otherwise.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.